Friday, September 23, 2005
Pimping Gannon
Via Atrios…
Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade, writes about Jim Guckert (better known as Jeff Gannon) “…many of his loudest critics represent a much more serious obstacle to the success of the gay rights movement.” Crain continues, “Gannon, of course, made headlines earlier this year after a softball question he asked President Bush at a press briefing led members of the White House press corps to do some digging into his background.”
For the record, Gannon did not just lob that softball question. He lobbed many. He was Scott McClellan’s go-to guy when the White House press corps questions became too tough to answer. After some digging, John Aravosis of AmericaBlog.com discovered that Jeff Gannon was indeed Jim Guckert (aka Bulldog). He was a male escort. Not only that, it seems that Jim/Jeff avoided paying taxes in Delaware.
Crain then fibs about what then happened: “Gannon largely evaded questions about the claim, suggesting he merely owned the sites or provided web consultation services.” Initially, Jim/Jeff did not simply evade questions about the claim; he tried to say that he was not in the pictures. When the evidence was irrefutable, he then was coy when asked questions about his escorting job and sexuality. He claimed neither was relevant to him being a reporter.
The Washington Blade even joined in on reporting on Jim/Jeff when they reported “in February that he attended a gay sex party in Virginia.”
It seems that now that Jim/Jeff is working for the Washington Blade, Crain feels obligated to defend him. Crain feels that those attacking Jim/Jeff are now also attacking the Washington Blade for carrying his columns. Crain writes, “…but most unleashed more anger at the messenger than the message.” Crain, who once attacked Jim/Jeff is now defending him. Crain is such a hypocrite.
Finally, Crain writes, “For that reason, the intolerance of the loudest voices on the gay left is a greater threat to our movement than a few lonely voices on the gay right.”
Crain is simply wrong. As comedian Bruce Davidson said, “A gay Republican is like a Black member of the KKK or a Jewish member of the Nazi party.” Why shill for a group of people who think you are an abomination? Why throw in with a group of people that includes people like Phyllis Schlafley, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and others on the religious right who, at the least, would want to deny you rights? In the extreme, those on the religious right would like to have all gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, transgendered, and intersexed people exterminated.
So, are people like John Aravosis and other “gay liberals” who shine the light of truth on the hypocrisy of those like Cris Crain and Jim/Jeff wrong? No. Crain, Jim/Jeff, and those like them are enablers of the conservative right - the group that wants to deny the GLBT community the same, equal (not special) rights that every other American enjoys.
Via Atrios…
Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade, writes about Jim Guckert (better known as Jeff Gannon) “…many of his loudest critics represent a much more serious obstacle to the success of the gay rights movement.” Crain continues, “Gannon, of course, made headlines earlier this year after a softball question he asked President Bush at a press briefing led members of the White House press corps to do some digging into his background.”
For the record, Gannon did not just lob that softball question. He lobbed many. He was Scott McClellan’s go-to guy when the White House press corps questions became too tough to answer. After some digging, John Aravosis of AmericaBlog.com discovered that Jeff Gannon was indeed Jim Guckert (aka Bulldog). He was a male escort. Not only that, it seems that Jim/Jeff avoided paying taxes in Delaware.
Crain then fibs about what then happened: “Gannon largely evaded questions about the claim, suggesting he merely owned the sites or provided web consultation services.” Initially, Jim/Jeff did not simply evade questions about the claim; he tried to say that he was not in the pictures. When the evidence was irrefutable, he then was coy when asked questions about his escorting job and sexuality. He claimed neither was relevant to him being a reporter.
The Washington Blade even joined in on reporting on Jim/Jeff when they reported “in February that he attended a gay sex party in Virginia.”
It seems that now that Jim/Jeff is working for the Washington Blade, Crain feels obligated to defend him. Crain feels that those attacking Jim/Jeff are now also attacking the Washington Blade for carrying his columns. Crain writes, “…but most unleashed more anger at the messenger than the message.” Crain, who once attacked Jim/Jeff is now defending him. Crain is such a hypocrite.
Finally, Crain writes, “For that reason, the intolerance of the loudest voices on the gay left is a greater threat to our movement than a few lonely voices on the gay right.”
Crain is simply wrong. As comedian Bruce Davidson said, “A gay Republican is like a Black member of the KKK or a Jewish member of the Nazi party.” Why shill for a group of people who think you are an abomination? Why throw in with a group of people that includes people like Phyllis Schlafley, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and others on the religious right who, at the least, would want to deny you rights? In the extreme, those on the religious right would like to have all gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, transgendered, and intersexed people exterminated.
So, are people like John Aravosis and other “gay liberals” who shine the light of truth on the hypocrisy of those like Cris Crain and Jim/Jeff wrong? No. Crain, Jim/Jeff, and those like them are enablers of the conservative right - the group that wants to deny the GLBT community the same, equal (not special) rights that every other American enjoys.
Thursday, September 22, 2005
I Second What Res Said…
Res Publica over at Republic of Dogs writes:
I totally agree. Last night, before I headed off to bed, my boyfriend called from work (as he does most nights he works). He asked whether he should stop off and get some water and supplies before Hurricane Rita hit. Apparently, his co-workers were getting antsy about Hurricane Rita, so it was rubbing off.
Now, we have almost a whole case of 20 ounce bottles of water in the cupboard (the pseudonymous boyfriend takes one to work and when he goes working out). We also have a nearly full 2-gallon container of Ozarka water in the fridge.
I told him we did not need the water. He said he would buy it anyway. If nothing happened, he could still use the water, as he normally would have. Eh. Better to be safe than sorry, right?
He then asked if he should stock up on food. I told him we had enough food in the fridge and cupboard to last a while. He then remembered that we have an entire box of meals-ready-to-eat (MRE) in the kitchen. Don’t ask. Before the pseudonymous boyfriend went to Iraq, his dad bought the box for him. The pseudonymous boyfriend has been back since June and we have not touched them. I have had MREs before. Some are okay; some taste like crap. If given a choice, I will eat what is in my cupboard before I touch the MREs.
Res then says:
I totally agree. If I am wrong, I am sure the pseudonymous boyfriend will not let me forget the fact that I was wrong. I will still love him anyway.
Res Publica over at Republic of Dogs writes:
…I'd like to know just what the fuck the good people of San Antonio are trippin' about.
I totally agree. Last night, before I headed off to bed, my boyfriend called from work (as he does most nights he works). He asked whether he should stop off and get some water and supplies before Hurricane Rita hit. Apparently, his co-workers were getting antsy about Hurricane Rita, so it was rubbing off.
Now, we have almost a whole case of 20 ounce bottles of water in the cupboard (the pseudonymous boyfriend takes one to work and when he goes working out). We also have a nearly full 2-gallon container of Ozarka water in the fridge.
I told him we did not need the water. He said he would buy it anyway. If nothing happened, he could still use the water, as he normally would have. Eh. Better to be safe than sorry, right?
He then asked if he should stock up on food. I told him we had enough food in the fridge and cupboard to last a while. He then remembered that we have an entire box of meals-ready-to-eat (MRE) in the kitchen. Don’t ask. Before the pseudonymous boyfriend went to Iraq, his dad bought the box for him. The pseudonymous boyfriend has been back since June and we have not touched them. I have had MREs before. Some are okay; some taste like crap. If given a choice, I will eat what is in my cupboard before I touch the MREs.
Res then says:
We're like 200 miles from the coast. It will just rain here. People need to put down the duct tape and take a deep breath.
I totally agree. If I am wrong, I am sure the pseudonymous boyfriend will not let me forget the fact that I was wrong. I will still love him anyway.
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Ben Shapiro: Wanker
World O’Crap has a pretty good takedown of Ben Shapiro’s (VBen) newest Townwall.com column,”The case for policing pornography.”
Here is my critique of VBen’s column. First, VBen cites a Washington Post article, but does not provide a link to it. VBen does not even give the name of the article. Talk about hack journalism.
If this column was in a newspaper, I could understand not providing a link – but it is online. Either VBen is too lazy to insert the link or he is being disingenuous and not including the link so his readers will not have an easy way to refer back to the original article and make up their own minds. Since VBen does not provide the link, I will.
Barton Gellman’s article is called, “Recruits Sought for Porn Squad.” Now you can look at all three links and make up your mind.
VBen says:
Now, the Washington Post article is not about the FBI policing child pornography, snuff films, rape pornography, etc. This article is about the FBI policing pornography that depicts consenting adults having sex and that is marketed to adults.
The FBI agent interviewed sarcastically said, "I guess this means we've won the war on terror." I agree. When was the last time that a Jenna Jameson, Blake Harper, or Falcon video flew into a building and knocked it down?
Then VBen conflates fighting criminal pornography (child pornography, snuff films, etc.) with non-criminal pornography by saying:
No, no, no, VBen. Public Corruption and Civil Rights violations are criminal conduct. Producing, marketing, and selling pornography to adults is not (in may states). Plus, VBen obviously did not read the Wahshington Post article which says:
Then VBen just goes off the precipice:
Oi! I guess VBen has never heard of a budget. The Federal government, like many American households, allocates money to certain items (defence, healthcare, welfare, transportation, etc.). Just as with American households, the Federal government does not spend all the money it collect on one item – fighting terrorism. Maybe VBen needs to go back and revisit some of his undergraduate classes like U.S. Government.
Then VBen says:
I guess VBen just missed one Supreme Court case that refutes that: Lawrence v. Texas.
VBen sadly continues:
VBen obviously ignores the example of Europe where prostitution is legal in many countries. In Holland, a small amount of marijuana is fine for personal use. Last time I checked, people do not get thrown in prison for attempting suicide.
The last snippet of VBen’s comment is just plain, batshit stupid – murder of homeless drifter is illegal because it does harm someone – the homeless drifter. He or she has the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, whether he has family or friends or not.
If porn stars consent to having sex, who is harmed? Are the porn stars? Are the adults who purchase the porn harmed? I am certain I can find multiple studies that argue that both parties are harmed. I can also find an equal amount of studies that show no one is hurt by porn.
I know VBen is making a rhetorical argument:
However, to equate punching someone and committing genocide with pornography is a straw man argument. Since VBen is studying to be a lawyer (at Harvard, no less), he needs to do better than making logical fallacies like that or he will be trounced in court by those who will punch so many holes in his arguments that the Hindenburg disaster will look like a mere balloon popping.
Further, VBen ignores facts:
However, according to the Washington Post article, “Recruits Sought for Porn Squad,” VBen refused to link to:
VBen, and those like him, want to impose their view of what people can and cannot do in their homes on everyone else. A few weeks ago, on the Michelangelo Signorile Show, VBen claimed he was still a virgin and never even masturbated. A friend of mine, Gabe, said "There are two types of guys in the world: masturbators and liars." World O’Crap, TBogg, and I have all caught VBen not telling the truth (aka, lying). Hmm…I guess he masturbates.
World O’Crap has a pretty good takedown of Ben Shapiro’s (VBen) newest Townwall.com column,”The case for policing pornography.”
Here is my critique of VBen’s column. First, VBen cites a Washington Post article, but does not provide a link to it. VBen does not even give the name of the article. Talk about hack journalism.
If this column was in a newspaper, I could understand not providing a link – but it is online. Either VBen is too lazy to insert the link or he is being disingenuous and not including the link so his readers will not have an easy way to refer back to the original article and make up their own minds. Since VBen does not provide the link, I will.
Barton Gellman’s article is called, “Recruits Sought for Porn Squad.” Now you can look at all three links and make up your mind.
VBen says:
Of course, it is pure malarkey for FBI agents to complain that policing porn takes valuable resources from the war on terrorism.
Now, the Washington Post article is not about the FBI policing child pornography, snuff films, rape pornography, etc. This article is about the FBI policing pornography that depicts consenting adults having sex and that is marketed to adults.
The FBI agent interviewed sarcastically said, "I guess this means we've won the war on terror." I agree. When was the last time that a Jenna Jameson, Blake Harper, or Falcon video flew into a building and knocked it down?
Then VBen conflates fighting criminal pornography (child pornography, snuff films, etc.) with non-criminal pornography by saying:
In the FBI context, every agent who polices public corruption or civil rights violation is an agent not working on terrorism.
No, no, no, VBen. Public Corruption and Civil Rights violations are criminal conduct. Producing, marketing, and selling pornography to adults is not (in may states). Plus, VBen obviously did not read the Wahshington Post article which says:
Public corruption, officially, is fourth on the FBI's priority list, after protecting the United States from terrorist attack, foreign espionage and cyber-based attacks. Just below those priorities are civil rights, organized crime, white-collar crime and "significant violent crime." The guidance from headquarters does not mention where pornography fits in.
Then VBen just goes off the precipice:
In a broader governmental context, the same could be said of welfare, health care and federal aid to the Katrina victims, to take some random examples. Every dollar spent by the federal government on causes other than terrorism takes a dollar away from fighting terrorism. Before we discuss cutting police power with regard to pornography, perhaps we should re-evaluate dedicating millions of federal dollars to building new bridges named after Robert Byrd.
Oi! I guess VBen has never heard of a budget. The Federal government, like many American households, allocates money to certain items (defence, healthcare, welfare, transportation, etc.). Just as with American households, the Federal government does not spend all the money it collect on one item – fighting terrorism. Maybe VBen needs to go back and revisit some of his undergraduate classes like U.S. Government.
Then VBen says:
They find the anti-pornography crowd disturbing because they believe that policing pornography violates fundamental rights. This has become the dominant view in our society: As long as what I do doesn't harm you personally, I have a right to do it. It's a silly view and a view rejected by law enforcement policies all over the country.
I guess VBen just missed one Supreme Court case that refutes that: Lawrence v. Texas.
VBen sadly continues:
Were we to truly recognize such a philosophy, we would have to legalize prostitution, drugs and suicide -- as well as the murder of homeless drifters with no family or friends.
VBen obviously ignores the example of Europe where prostitution is legal in many countries. In Holland, a small amount of marijuana is fine for personal use. Last time I checked, people do not get thrown in prison for attempting suicide.
The last snippet of VBen’s comment is just plain, batshit stupid – murder of homeless drifter is illegal because it does harm someone – the homeless drifter. He or she has the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, whether he has family or friends or not.
If porn stars consent to having sex, who is harmed? Are the porn stars? Are the adults who purchase the porn harmed? I am certain I can find multiple studies that argue that both parties are harmed. I can also find an equal amount of studies that show no one is hurt by porn.
I know VBen is making a rhetorical argument:
No, you can't punch me in the nose, but if you choose to perpetrate genocide, and if none of my friends or family members is thrown into a mass grave, what business of mine is it?
However, to equate punching someone and committing genocide with pornography is a straw man argument. Since VBen is studying to be a lawyer (at Harvard, no less), he needs to do better than making logical fallacies like that or he will be trounced in court by those who will punch so many holes in his arguments that the Hindenburg disaster will look like a mere balloon popping.
Further, VBen ignores facts:
But then again, perhaps we have not reached the point where pornography is as legitimate as any other business.
However, according to the Washington Post article, “Recruits Sought for Porn Squad,” VBen refused to link to:
Explicit sexual entertainment is a profit center for companies including General Motors Corp. and Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. [which also owns Fox News!] (the two major owners of DirecTV), Time Warner Inc. and the Sheraton, Hilton, Marriott and Hyatt hotel chains.
VBen, and those like him, want to impose their view of what people can and cannot do in their homes on everyone else. A few weeks ago, on the Michelangelo Signorile Show, VBen claimed he was still a virgin and never even masturbated. A friend of mine, Gabe, said "There are two types of guys in the world: masturbators and liars." World O’Crap, TBogg, and I have all caught VBen not telling the truth (aka, lying). Hmm…I guess he masturbates.
Monday, September 19, 2005
Going Back to Separate, But Equal?
Salon (Subsription or DayPass required) has an article about how my “wonderful” Senators, Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn, introduced a bill that would to allow school districts across the country to open separate schools for hurricane victims. Are we going back to Brown v Board of Education again? I thought “separate, but equal” was tried before and failed miserably. It took the Supreme Court of the United States to scrap that vestige of racism.
I guess the Supreme Court was not that successful. The bill “would also allow schools to issue ‘identification cards or other identifying insignia’ for students affected by Hurricane Katrina.”
Chris Paulitz, a spokesperson for my “wonderful” Senator, Kay Baily Hutchison says:
Mr Paulitz argues:
He adds:
I have seen too many “temporary” programs that have been implemented by well meaning Representatives and Senators that have turned into permanent programs.
I believe this “temporary waiver” is basically giving school districts carte blanche to discriminate against students who come from New Orleans. Since many of the evacuees are Black, it certainly raises the question about whether these students are being segregated simply because they come from New Orleans or because they are Black. In my opinion, segregating the students would not be good for them. These students need to be treated just like everyone else.
Chad Colby, a spokesman for Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings said:
He added:
The McKinney-Vento Act is the law that requires equal treatment for homeless students. So basically, Senators Hutchison and Cornyn and Secretary of Education Spellings want flexibility to segregate the evacuees of New Orleans and want to go back to a pre-Brown v. Education era.
Salon (Subsription or DayPass required) has an article about how my “wonderful” Senators, Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn, introduced a bill that would to allow school districts across the country to open separate schools for hurricane victims. Are we going back to Brown v Board of Education again? I thought “separate, but equal” was tried before and failed miserably. It took the Supreme Court of the United States to scrap that vestige of racism.
I guess the Supreme Court was not that successful. The bill “would also allow schools to issue ‘identification cards or other identifying insignia’ for students affected by Hurricane Katrina.”
Chris Paulitz, a spokesperson for my “wonderful” Senator, Kay Baily Hutchison says:
Our top priority is keeping the kids from Louisiana in an environment that is safe, secure and familiar.
Mr Paulitz argues:
In some cases evacuees might be better served by going to schools with other evacuees.
He adds:
This is only a temporary waiver for the remainder of the school year.
I have seen too many “temporary” programs that have been implemented by well meaning Representatives and Senators that have turned into permanent programs.
I believe this “temporary waiver” is basically giving school districts carte blanche to discriminate against students who come from New Orleans. Since many of the evacuees are Black, it certainly raises the question about whether these students are being segregated simply because they come from New Orleans or because they are Black. In my opinion, segregating the students would not be good for them. These students need to be treated just like everyone else.
Chad Colby, a spokesman for Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings said:
The point is to get these kids into some kind of normalcy across the board.
He added:
In a unique situation like this, which McKinney-Vento was not written to address, the secretary thinks she needs the authority.
The McKinney-Vento Act is the law that requires equal treatment for homeless students. So basically, Senators Hutchison and Cornyn and Secretary of Education Spellings want flexibility to segregate the evacuees of New Orleans and want to go back to a pre-Brown v. Education era.
Thursday, September 15, 2005
2 of 54
2 of 54. No, that is not a Borg designation. That is the number that represents Texas Senator John Cornyn and Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. They are 2 of 54 Republican Senators who voted against Senate Amendment (SA) 1660. SA 1660’s purpose was to “To establish a congressional commission to examine the Federal, State, and local response to the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf Region of the United States especially in the States of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and other areas impacted in the aftermath and make immediate corrective measures to improve such responses in the future.”
In all, 76% of Americans want an independent bipartisan commission, like the one that investigated the 9/11 attacks, to investigate what went wrong. In fact, according to the same poll, Americans of all stripes, Republicans and Democrats, are united behind their support for such a commission (64% of all Republicans and 83% of all Democrats want a commission) even though they were aware that the Republicans in Congress are doing their own biased and partisan investigation (see below).
The proposal in the Senate is for a panel to be established. However, the Republicans will be in charge and will be the ones calling witnesses and setting the agenda. Any Democrats who are on the panel will be on it at the behest of the Republicans. This is the Republican version of bipartisanship.
I cannot understand how the Republicans in the Senate can go against the “will of the people” so uniformly. Actually, I can. It was a party-line vote. The Republican Senators voted to prevent an independent commission because that independent commission would show that people at all levels of government messed up. However, the Republicans do not want to direct the sunshine of truth on how terrible the Bush Administration’s response was to Hurricane Katrina.
On an interesting note, David Vitter, Republican Senator from Louisiana, abstained from voting. If I lived in Louisiana, I would be quite angry and disappointed with his non-vote.
2 of 54. No, that is not a Borg designation. That is the number that represents Texas Senator John Cornyn and Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. They are 2 of 54 Republican Senators who voted against Senate Amendment (SA) 1660. SA 1660’s purpose was to “To establish a congressional commission to examine the Federal, State, and local response to the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf Region of the United States especially in the States of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and other areas impacted in the aftermath and make immediate corrective measures to improve such responses in the future.”
In all, 76% of Americans want an independent bipartisan commission, like the one that investigated the 9/11 attacks, to investigate what went wrong. In fact, according to the same poll, Americans of all stripes, Republicans and Democrats, are united behind their support for such a commission (64% of all Republicans and 83% of all Democrats want a commission) even though they were aware that the Republicans in Congress are doing their own biased and partisan investigation (see below).
The proposal in the Senate is for a panel to be established. However, the Republicans will be in charge and will be the ones calling witnesses and setting the agenda. Any Democrats who are on the panel will be on it at the behest of the Republicans. This is the Republican version of bipartisanship.
I cannot understand how the Republicans in the Senate can go against the “will of the people” so uniformly. Actually, I can. It was a party-line vote. The Republican Senators voted to prevent an independent commission because that independent commission would show that people at all levels of government messed up. However, the Republicans do not want to direct the sunshine of truth on how terrible the Bush Administration’s response was to Hurricane Katrina.
On an interesting note, David Vitter, Republican Senator from Louisiana, abstained from voting. If I lived in Louisiana, I would be quite angry and disappointed with his non-vote.
Monday, September 12, 2005
EPA: Come On in, the Water’s Fine!
The New Orleans Times-Picayune has a headline that reads, “Contamination little threat to humans, but could detroy (sic) lawns.” After the EPA blatantly lied about the safety of the Ground Zero air, I do not think they should be trusted about telling us that the contamination is of little threat to humans.
Mark Schleifstein, a staff writer for the Times-Picayune writes:
That is over 56 times the amount of lead that is considered safe by the EPA.
The article goes on:
That is 12 times the safety limits established by the EPA.
The article further describes the contamination at one location:
Yes, the sodium levels are high and people’s laws will be affected. However, if I were living in New Orleans, I would be more concerned about the high levels of lead, chromium, zinc, and E. coli contaminating the water (and soil). After the misinformation the EPA gave to the citizens of New York about the levels of asbestos and other airborne contaminants, I would not be able to trust them to give me the “all clear.”
The New Orleans Times-Picayune has a headline that reads, “Contamination little threat to humans, but could detroy (sic) lawns.” After the EPA blatantly lied about the safety of the Ground Zero air, I do not think they should be trusted about telling us that the contamination is of little threat to humans.
Mark Schleifstein, a staff writer for the Times-Picayune writes:
As it reported last Wednesday, EPA found very high levels of lead in water sampled at the North Claiborne Avenue exit off Interstate 10 in New Orleans. The 846 parts per billion of lead far exceeds the agency’s 15 ppb standard for drinking water.
That is over 56 times the amount of lead that is considered safe by the EPA.
The article goes on:
On Saturday, the agency announced it found as many as 2,400 colonies of E. coli bacteria in water samples in the city, far above EPA’s 200-colony limit for human contact. Presence of the bacteria is an indicator of human and animal waste in water, which pose a risk of illness or infection.
That is 12 times the safety limits established by the EPA.
The article further describes the contamination at one location:
At the Claiborne Avenue sample location where high levels of lead were found, the water also contained measurable amounts of chromium and copper and high levels of zinc and iron, which could indicate that wastes from a metal plating business were mixed in the water, Subra said. It also contained chemicals used as flocculants in sewage treatment plants to cause solids in wastewater to stick together.
Yes, the sodium levels are high and people’s laws will be affected. However, if I were living in New Orleans, I would be more concerned about the high levels of lead, chromium, zinc, and E. coli contaminating the water (and soil). After the misinformation the EPA gave to the citizens of New York about the levels of asbestos and other airborne contaminants, I would not be able to trust them to give me the “all clear.”
Bill O’Reilly: Wanker
I just ran across this link from Bill O’Reilly (because I avoid Faux News like the plague). In it Bill writes:
The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day
Our great ally France has offered the following in the wake of Katrina: 600 tents, 1,000 cots, some kitchen kits, 60 generators and 12 experts to advise the American Red Cross. --I hope they speak English.
Now I believe the 4-H Club of Bangor, Maine, has topped that offer.
Really? I work for a subsidiary of EADS. EADS donated the A300-600ST Super Transporter, nicknamed the Beluga, to transport the tents, cots, generators, and miscellaneous Hurricane Katrina aid equipment. I guess the 4-H Club of Bangor Maine has all that just sitting around, right?
Superfrenchie lists all the items donated:
Bill O’Reilly is so obsessed about bashing France that he even denigrates the donations they are offering. Thankfully, France is ignoring him. France, the United Kingdom, and Germany all donated items to be transported to aid in the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
I am glad Bill O’Reilly is not my neighbour. I can see it now… Bill’s house burns down flames and is a total loss. Being neighbourly, I would offer him and his family a room, warm food, and a place to shower. He would then yell at me that the Girl Scouts could have topped that offer. That is basically what he did to the French offer.
I just ran across this link from Bill O’Reilly (because I avoid Faux News like the plague). In it Bill writes:
The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day
Our great ally France has offered the following in the wake of Katrina: 600 tents, 1,000 cots, some kitchen kits, 60 generators and 12 experts to advise the American Red Cross. --I hope they speak English.
Now I believe the 4-H Club of Bangor, Maine, has topped that offer.
Really? I work for a subsidiary of EADS. EADS donated the A300-600ST Super Transporter, nicknamed the Beluga, to transport the tents, cots, generators, and miscellaneous Hurricane Katrina aid equipment. I guess the 4-H Club of Bangor Maine has all that just sitting around, right?
Superfrenchie lists all the items donated:
- 20 25m2 tents, 20 4x4 meter tents, and 200 8x6 meter tarps
- 1,000 food rations (for 24 hrs)
- 6.1 tons of freight
- 4 autonomous personnel (Armed Forces et Civil Security) for 5 days
- 1 Airbus Beluga cargo plane loaded with 12.7 tons of freight (9 25m2 tents, 50 4x4 meter tents, 40 rolls of tarp, 170 8x12 meter tarps, 300 flexible jerry cans, 1,000 bars of heavy-duty soap, 500 cooking kits)
- 200 kg of phone and Internet equipment for reestablishing lines
- The municipality of Orléans is offering to welcome 50 students from Loyola University
- The French Red Cross is offering 18 staffers, and supplies to cover the immediate needs of 1,000 families (5,000 persons)
- Medical personnel (6 people) and water purification unit (1,500 liters of water per hour)
- 25 autonomous personnel (sniffer dogs, electronic equipment, chainsaws, winches, motorized pumps, drills) + medical team
- Medical staff that can care for 2,000 people for 10 days
- 2 doctors, 2 firefighters, 1 nurse, with resuscitation equipment and medicine
- 2 helicopters
- Water transport trucks (from the Houston branch of Veolia Corporation)
- The Total oil company has given $1 million to disaster relief
Bill O’Reilly is so obsessed about bashing France that he even denigrates the donations they are offering. Thankfully, France is ignoring him. France, the United Kingdom, and Germany all donated items to be transported to aid in the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
I am glad Bill O’Reilly is not my neighbour. I can see it now… Bill’s house burns down flames and is a total loss. Being neighbourly, I would offer him and his family a room, warm food, and a place to shower. He would then yell at me that the Girl Scouts could have topped that offer. That is basically what he did to the French offer.
Help Where It Is Needed?
On my way drive home from work on Friday, I looked to my left and noticed the Mexican flag flying over a field on Kelly USA. It turns out that the Mexican government sent a contingent of their military to help out with the Hurricane Katrina relief efforts.
Carlos Guerra, of the San Antonio Express News gives details and commentary about why 47 military vehicles and 195 men and women of the Mexican military were in San Antonio. It turns out that this group is specialised in humanitarian aid, especially in providing clean drinking water and preparing hot meals.
The problem, though, is that San Antonio’s water system is not compromised in anyway. On top of that, the evacuees have been receiving hot meals since they arrived in San Antonio.
Guerra writes of the run-around FEMA and the State Department gave him:
Considering the bungling of the relief efforts that have happened with the Gulf Coast victims, this is just par for the course.
On my way drive home from work on Friday, I looked to my left and noticed the Mexican flag flying over a field on Kelly USA. It turns out that the Mexican government sent a contingent of their military to help out with the Hurricane Katrina relief efforts.
Carlos Guerra, of the San Antonio Express News gives details and commentary about why 47 military vehicles and 195 men and women of the Mexican military were in San Antonio. It turns out that this group is specialised in humanitarian aid, especially in providing clean drinking water and preparing hot meals.
The problem, though, is that San Antonio’s water system is not compromised in anyway. On top of that, the evacuees have been receiving hot meals since they arrived in San Antonio.
Guerra writes of the run-around FEMA and the State Department gave him:
But San Antonio has some of the nation's cleanest water, I told FEMA press officer Christopher White, and all the evacuees who came here have been served hot meals since they arrived. Why wasn't Mexico's specialized help sent to the hurricane-battered area, where entire towns have been flattened and where 73 drinking water systems in Alabama, 555 in Mississippi and 469 in Louisiana are compromised or nonfunctional?
“Good question," he said, and promised to check. He called back to say that the State Department is handling all foreign relief help.
State Department press officer Jeanne Moore, however, hadn't heard of the Mexican convoy, and after checking into it, called back.
But she could only refer me to a press briefing by State Department spokesman Shawn McCormack.
Asked by a reporter Thursday what help the Mexican convoy would provide, McCormack replied: "As far as I know, they're part of a transportation convoy. As for how the aid gets distributed on the ground, I think the folks at (Department of Human Services) and FEMA or (Department of Defense) would be in a better position to answer that."
Left Hand, let me introduce you to Right Hand. You should talk before you embarrass us even more.
Considering the bungling of the relief efforts that have happened with the Gulf Coast victims, this is just par for the course.
Friday, September 09, 2005
Hand Sanitiser
I had a chance to volunteer to help out the evacuees of Hurricane Katrina. I was asked to volunteer at the cafeteria. I spent two-and-a-half hours dispensing hand sanitiser (Wal-Mart's version of Purel). The thing that struck me me was that practically everyone that came in - young, old, men, and women - were all extremly courteous. They all said, "Please," "Thank you," and "You're welcome." I guess what I've read some conservatives say that the U.S. is becoming less courteous is simply false.
Building 171 on Kelly USA here in San Antonio, Texas, looks completely different than it did last Saturday. It seems much more organised than it did. The halls are clean, the place - even though it has thousands of people living in it - smells clean. A small army of people goes around cleaning up everything - bathrooms, door handles, floors, carpets, etc.
I do not know how much longer Building 171 will be used. I would hope that most of the people would be moved out to more permanent homes sooner, rather than later. On suggestion I read about on Marginal Revolution was to offer housing vouchers for families so they could rent homes. I think this would be good for all those involved - renters and rentees. The 12.8 percent of renters in San Antonio could house the evacuees and receive payment (until the evacuees can get back on their feet) - everyone would benefit. Best of all, the mechanism is in place - Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. Granted, Section 8 has been looked down upon by many. However, if this program can be used to help people out, it should.
I had a chance to volunteer to help out the evacuees of Hurricane Katrina. I was asked to volunteer at the cafeteria. I spent two-and-a-half hours dispensing hand sanitiser (Wal-Mart's version of Purel). The thing that struck me me was that practically everyone that came in - young, old, men, and women - were all extremly courteous. They all said, "Please," "Thank you," and "You're welcome." I guess what I've read some conservatives say that the U.S. is becoming less courteous is simply false.
Building 171 on Kelly USA here in San Antonio, Texas, looks completely different than it did last Saturday. It seems much more organised than it did. The halls are clean, the place - even though it has thousands of people living in it - smells clean. A small army of people goes around cleaning up everything - bathrooms, door handles, floors, carpets, etc.
I do not know how much longer Building 171 will be used. I would hope that most of the people would be moved out to more permanent homes sooner, rather than later. On suggestion I read about on Marginal Revolution was to offer housing vouchers for families so they could rent homes. I think this would be good for all those involved - renters and rentees. The 12.8 percent of renters in San Antonio could house the evacuees and receive payment (until the evacuees can get back on their feet) - everyone would benefit. Best of all, the mechanism is in place - Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. Granted, Section 8 has been looked down upon by many. However, if this program can be used to help people out, it should.
